Firstly, one is greatly impressed by the colours and scenery, for that you have clearly succeeded in making a good image. On closer analysis, too, the details are all quite nice indeed, and only minor flaws are notable. The image shows a classical space art scene, though admittedly, I do not see anything particularly original in this image; but that is actually quite besides the point, if you have aimed at creating a classical scene true to the classical form.
As to those minor details: some of the smaller periphery nebulae seem to pop-out rather suddenly, in a manner which makes them appear to be in front of most of the stars, while some of the nebulae discolourations, appear more as camera imaging defects, rather than naturally occurring within the nebulae (which may or may not be intended, for effect). I would also question whether it may be feasible to enhance the contrast of various elements in the image to good effect, given the amount of light in this image radiating from stars. For instance, the largest apparent planet could have a darker shadowing, just as with the other planets, and the darker nebulae covering up the stars could be less lit in certain parts with somewhat more cloudiness, as in the central part of the image, if one wanted to experiment further with it: although in any case, I think that the nebulae has been well done, if it is intended to be of a sparse sort. In general, the variation, particularly noted with the starfield, is very good; however, some of the stars do appear to be semi-translucent, while for some stylistic effect some stars masked by a general light, as through a nebulae, may be acceptable, that some may appear translucent, as in the periphery of the band of “masked” stars here, is arguably undesirable.
But despite these (indeed relatively) minor criticisms, this image has a splendid sense of form, light, colour and detail to it, and certainly shows itself to be in the Bryan Kolb style (for which, by proxy, I can boost the originality rating to 1-star, from 0.5-star, at least). Further development in technique, and approach (i.e. continuing along the lines of your style), and perhaps original elements (if so desired), could indeed bring about some spectacular images; though I suspect good works in any case, if you at least keep up to your current standard in quality.
Thank you. I remain blind to my own style, though people have been increasingly quick to point out that I have one. The translucent stars are a purely technical issue that I hope to correct when I have a chance (perhaps I was too quick to upload the image). Though I try to be original as often as possible, sometimes it feels good to revisit more classic scenes and I'm glad you appreciated despite its lack of originality.
You are welcome. This is perhaps one problem with the pre-set reviewing criteria involving "originality" as a parametre (given that it does not necessarily count for the worth of the image; and that a classic scene can be worth-while): some capacity to modify what counts as a criteria for reviews in given cases could alleviate this issue, within reason.
I think the words of the one submitting the critique are enough (for anyone who actually bothers to read the whole thing).
By the way, what have you been up to? You don't seem to be very active here lately.
Mostly philosophy as opposed to art lately, but I decided to take a look here recently in a spare moment regardless.